Shall the door be shut?

Shall the Door

V' .

Be Shut?

•

1

"To whom was the pledge of the Balfour Declaration made?
This pledge of a home of refuge, of an asylum, was not
made to the Jews in Palestine, but to the Jews outside Pales-
tine, to that vast, unhappy mass of scattered, persecuted,
wandering Jews whose intense, unchanging, unconquerable
desire has been for a National Home . . ."

Winston Churchill

SHALL THE DOOR BE SHUT?

The Palestine Resolution
of the Congress of the United States

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, that the United States of America favors
the establishment in Palestine of a national home for
the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil
and religious rights of Christian and all other non-
Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy
places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine
shall be adequately protected.

Adopted unanimously by both Houses on June 30, 1922.
Signed by President Harding on September 21, 1922,

The BRITISH white paper of May 17, 1939 will close Palestine
to all Jewish immigration in the spring of this year.* At a time
when millions of European Jews have been massacred by the
Nazis, the chief and almost the only door to escape will be slammed in
the face of those hundreds of thousands who still survive and whom
the Nazis have starved, impoverished, uprooted from home and
occupation.

The Palestine White Paper followed by a few months the Munich
surrender. It reflected the same crisis in world statesmanship and inter-
national morality. As in Europe, so in Palestine, principle was sacrificed
to expediency. After a period of Axis-fed agitation and terrorism, during
which the followers of the Mufti of Jerusalem who is now in Berlin,
attacked and murdered not only Jews but large numbers of Arabs who
refused to recognize the Mufti's leadership, Britain yielded. The League
of Nations Mandate by virtue of which she governs Palestine had made
her responsible "for placing the country under such political, adminis-
trative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the
Jewish National Home" and had obligated her specifically to facilitate
Jewish immigration. By abandoning these obligations to the Jewish
National Home, Britain hoped to secure the support of the Arab world
in the great struggle that was clearly about to begin.

That the benefits to be derived from the pursuit of such a policy of
"administrative convenience" would be illusory, was pointed out at the
time the White Paper was issued by Mr. Winston Churchill in a re-

* The only immigrants to be admitted will be the holders of some 30,000 immigration
certificates remaining from the 75,000 quota alloted by the White Paper for the five-
year period ending March 31, 1944; wartime transportation difficulties have made it
impossible for these to be used within the time limit set by the White Paper.

maskable speech reproduced in this pamphlet. The course of events
during the war has made it clear that appeasement failed in the Arab
world as it failed elsewhere. In Iraq in 1941 there was a pro-Axis
revolt. Egypt moved no finger to aid the Allies in the defense of Egyp-
tian soil, and as long as the German machine was in the ascendant, the
Arabs of Palestine and Syria seethed with pro- Axis sentiment.

The policy of the White Paper was laid down nearly five years
ago. Today the entire world is influx, and the future status and
organization of the Mediterranean area, as of all central and eastern
Europe, is in the balance. It might thus have been assumed that the
problem of Palestine, too, would be subject to reconsideration in the
light of the new situation. No hint of this has been forthcoming on
the part of the British Government. On the contrary, many elements in
k are ardent in their insistence that the White Paper, apparently alone
of the adjustments of the Chamberlain era, must remain sacrosanct.

The White Paper consistently attempts to reconcile its proposals
with the terms of the Mandate for Palestine: its renunciation of the
Mandate is made to appear a logical conclusion springing from the
terms of the Mandate itself. Actually, the White Paper deliberately
ignores what Mr. Churchill describes as Britain's paramount pledge and
obligation under the Mandate — the development of the Jewish National
Home. The White Paper is not and cannot be the last word on the future
of Palestine or of the Jewish people, linked to Palestine by the un-
breakable bonds of history, tradition, and international recognition. It
remains for the conscience of the democratic peoples, for an enlightened
statesmanship in a world which has been through the crucible of a
terrible war, fearlessly to face a problem which has challenged man-
kind through two thousand years of history. The problem is that of the
national homelessness of the Jewish people, a minority everywhere
with no land which it may call its own and to which it may turn for
escape from the recurrent persecution to which it is subject. In a wise
and courageous solution of this problem, the White Paper can have
no part.

THE WHITE PAPER: A Summary

The Palestine White Paper of May 1939 is divided into three
sections dealing respectively with Constitution, Immigration and Land.

(1) Constitution: The White Paper refers to the statement in
July 1937 of the Palestine Royal Commission that there is nothing in
the Balfour Declaration to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a
Jewish state. The White Paper declares unequivocally, however, that
it is not part of the policy of His Majesty's Government, that Palestine
should become a Jewish state. The obligation of His Majesty's Gov-
ernment is limited to the further development of the existing Jewish
community with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in
order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people, as a
whole, may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a
pride. The increase in the Jewish population of Palestine to some
450,000 since 1922, or approaching one third of the entire population
of the country, is evidence that His Majesty's Government have been
carrying out this obligation. Nor has the Jewish community failed to
take advantage of the opportunities given to it. "The growth of the
Jewish National Home and its achievements in many fields are a re-
markable constructive effort which must command the admiration of
the world and must be in particular a source of pride to the Jewish
people."

On the other hand, it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to
secure the development of self-government and they desire to see estab-
lished ultimately an independent Palestine state in which Arabs and
Jews would share authority in Government in such a way that the
essential interests of each are secured. More specifically it is declared
that the objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment
within ten years (i. e. from May, 1939) of an independent Palestine
state. During the preceding transitional period Palestinians will be
given an increasing part in the government of the country and Arab

and Jewish representatives will be invited to serve as heads of depart-
ments approximately in proportion to their respective populations.
(The proportion envisaged, as appears later in the document, is one
third Jews and two thirds Arabs.) Provision is to be made for the
security of, and freedom of access to, the Holy Places, and for British
strategic needs in the light of circumstances then existing.

His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to
create conditions which will enable the independent Palestine state
to come into being within ten years, but if at the end of that period it
appears to His Majesty's Government that circumstances require post-
ponement of the establishment of an independent state it will consult
with the representatives of the people of Palestine, the Council of the
League of Nations and neighboring Arab states before deciding any
such postponement. Should His Majesty's Government come to the
conclusion that postponement is unavoidable, it will invite the co-
operation of those parties in framing plans for the future with a view
to achieving the desired objective at the earliest possible date.

(2) Immigration: The White Paper restates the principle of
the 1922 (Churchill) White Paper that for the fulfillment of the
policy of establishing a Jewish National Home "it is necessary that the
Jewish population should be able to increase its numbers by immigra-
tion. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed
whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to
absorb new arrivals." Until recently the economic absorptive capacity
of the country had been treated as the sole limiting factor on Jewish
immigration. It is now affirmed, however, that the political position
in the country, including such matters as the fear of indefinite Jewish
immigration on the part of the Arab population, is a factor which should
not be ignored in framing an immigration policy. ''The alternatives
before His Majesty's Government are either to seek to expand the
Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration against the strongly
expressed will of the Arab people of the country, or to permit further
expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the

Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it." The former policy means rule
by force and His Majesty's Government have decided that the time has
come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives offered above.
It is accordingly proposed that ( 1 ) for the five year period from the
beginning of April 1939, 75,000 immigrants shall, subject to the
criterion of the economic absorptive capacity, be admitted, (2) after
the period of five years no further Jewish immigration will be per-
mitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.

(3) Land: In terms of Article IV of the Mandate the Adminis-
tration of Palestine is required "while ensuring that the rights and
position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced," to
encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land." The natural growth
of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab
lands to Jews have led to the conclusion that all transfers of land must
be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their standard of living
and a considerable landless Arab population is not to be created. It is
proposed accordingly to give the High Commissioner general powers
to prohibit and regulate transfers of land. (Regulations in pursuance
of this provision were issued subsequently; according to these Jews are
to be allowed rights of free purchase in only 2.6% — 260 square miles
— of the total area of Palestine. A total prohibition on transfer of land
to Jews was imposed in about two thirds of the country; in the re-
maining area transfer is permissible only under severe restrictions and
subject to the consent of the High Commissioner.)

The White Paper concludes with the statement that "in framing
these proposals His Majesty's Government has sincerely endeavoured
to act in strict accordance with its obligations under the Mandate to
both the Arabs and the Jews."

THE BREACH OF A SOLEMN OBLIGATION

WINSTON CHURCHILL

A SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS DURING
THE DEBATE ON THE WHITE PAPER, MAY 22, 1939

SAY quite frankly that I find this is a melancholy occasion. Like my right
honourable Friend, the Member for Sparkbrook*, I feel bound to vote
against the proposals of His Majesty's Government. As one intimately
and responsibly concerned in the earlier stages of our Palestine policy, I
could not stand by and see solemn engagements into which Britain has
entered before the world set aside for reasons of administrative con-
venience or — and it will be a vain hope — for the sake of a quiet life.
Like my right honourable Friend, I should feel personally embarrassed
in the most acute manner if I lent myself, by silence or inaction, to what
I must regard as an act of repudiation.

It is often supposed that the Balfour Declaration was an ill-considered,
sentimental act largely concerned with the right honourable Member for
Carnarvon Boroughs 2 for which the Conservative party had no real
responsibility, and that, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, it
was a thing done in the tumult of the War. But hardly any step
was taken with greater deliberation and responsibility. I was glad to
hear the account which my right honourable Friend, the Member for
Sparkbrook gave, derived from the days when he was working in the
Secretariat of the War Cabinet, of the care and pains with which the
whole field was explored at that time. Not only did the War Cabinet
of those days take the decision but all Cabinets of every party after the
War, after examining it in the varying circumstances which have arisen,
have endorsed the decision and taken the fullest responsibility for it.

When I went to the Colonial Office it was in this spirit that I wrote this
dispatch, under the authority of the Cabinet, which is quoted so much in
the White Paper now before us. Great use is made of this dispatch of

1 Leopold Amery

1 David Lloyd George

1922 in the White Paper. It is sought to found the argument of the
White Paper largely upon it. I stand by every word in those lengthy
quotations which have been made from what I wrote. I would not alter
a sentence after the sixteen years that have passed, but I must say I
think it rather misleading to quote so extensively from one part of the
dispatch without indicating what was its main purpose. The particular
paragraph quoted would do little to cool down the ardour of the Zionist
and little to reassure the apprehensions of the Arabs. The main purpose
of the dispatch was clear. This is what I said in paragraph (1) :

>
"His Majesty's Government have no intention of repudiating the

obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."

I then proceeded to say that the Government would refuse to discuss
the future of Palestine on any basis other than the basis of the Balfour
Declaration. Moreover, the whole tenor of the dispatch was to make it
clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was
subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a
Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Last night the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used a
surprising argument. He suggested that the obligation to introduce self-
governing institutions into Palestine ranked equally with the obligation
to establish a Jewish National Home. In this very dispatch of mine, which
represented the views of the entire Government of the day, the greatest
pains were taken to make it clear that the paramount duty was the estab-
lishment of a National Home. It was said on page six:

"The position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a
pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations,
and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country
for which they have accepted responsibility to the principal Allied
Powers which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn
undertaking given by themselves and their Allies."

Now I come to the gravamen of the case. I regret very much that
the pledge of the Balfour Declaration, endorsed as it has been by successive
Governments, and the conditions under which we obtained the Mandate,
have both been violated by the Government's proposals. There is much
in this White Paper which is alien to the spirit of the Balfour Declara-

9

tion, but I will not trouble about that. I select the one point upon which
there is plainly a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration — the
provision that Jewish immigration can be stopped in five years' time by
the decision of an Arab majority. That is a plain breach of a solemn
obligation. I am astonished that my right honourable Friend the Prime
Minister, of all others, and at this moment above all others, should have
lent himself to this new and sudden default.

Britain Has No Right to Close the Door of Palestine

To whom was the pledge of the Balfour Declaration made? It was
not made to the Jews of Palestine, it was not made to those who were
actually living in Palestine. It was made to world Jewry and in particular
to the Zionist associations. It was in consequence of and on the basis of
this pledge that we received important help in the War, and that after
the War we received from the Allied and Associated Powers the Mandate
for Palestine. This pledge of a home of refuge, of an asylum, was not
made to the Jews in Palestine but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that
vast, unhappy mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering Jews whose intense,
unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home. That
is the pledge which was given, and that is the pledge which we are now
asked to break.

It is said specifically on page ten of the White Paper that Jewish
immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if the
economic absorptive capacity allows, will bring the population up to
approximately one-third of the total population of the country. After
that the Arab majority, twice as numerous as the Jews, will have control,
and all further Jewish immigration will be subject to their acquiescence,
which is only another way of saying that it will be on sufferance. What
is that but the destruction of the Balfour Declaration? What is it but
one-sided denunciation — what is called in the jargon of the present time
a unilateral denunciation — of an engagement?

There need be no dispute about this phrase "economic absorptive
capacity." It represented the intentions of the Government and their
desire to carry out the Palestinian Mandate in an efficient and in a
prudent manner. As I am the author of the phrase, perhaps I may be
allowed to state that economic absorptive capacity was never intended to
rule without regard to any other consideration. It has always rested with
the Mandatory Power to vary the influx of the Jews in accordance with

10

what was best for Palestine and for the sincere fulfillment — one must
presuppose the sincere fulfillment — of our purpose in establishing a Jewish
National Home there. It was never suggested at any time that the
decision about the quota to be admitted should rest with the Jews or
should rest with the Arabs. It rested, and could only rest at any time,
with the Mandatory Power which was responsible for carrying out the
high purpose of the then victorious Allies. The Mandatory Commission
of the League of Nations, as was mentioned by the spokesman for the
Opposition when he opened the Debate this afternoon, has recognized
fully that the Mandatory Power was entitled to control the flow of im-
migration, or even to suspend it in any emergency. What they are not
entitled to do, at least not entitled to do without reproach — grave public
and worldwide reproach, and I trust self-reproach as well — is to brin»
the immigration to an end so far as they are concerned, to wash their
hands of it, to close the door. That they have no right whatever to do . . .
I cannot understand why this course has blen taken. I search around
for the answer. The first question one would ask oneself is fore-
shadowed in a reference made in the speech of my honourable Friend,
and is this: Is our condition so parlous and our state so poor that we must,
in our weakness, make this sacrifice of our declared purpose? Although
I have been very anxious that we should strengthen our armaments and
spread our alliances and so increase the force of our position, I must say
that I have not taken such a low view of the strength of the British
Empire or of the very many powerful countries who desire to walk in
association with us; but if the Government, with their superior knowledge
of the deficiencies in our armaments which have arisen during their
stewardship, really feel that we are too weak to carry out our obligations
and wish to file a petition in moral and physical bankruptcy, that is an
argument which, however ignominious, should certainly weigh with the
House in these dangerous times. But is it true? I do not believe it is
true. I cannot believe that the task to which we set our hand twenty
years ago in Palestine is beyond our strength, or that faithful perseverance
will not, in the end, bring that task to a glorious success . . .

We must ask ourselves another question, which arises out of this:
Can we — and this is the question — strengthen ourselves by repudiation?
Shall we relieve ourselves by this repudiation? I should have thought that
the plan put forward by the Colonial Secretary in his White Paper, with
its arid constitutional ideas and safety catches at every point, and with

11

vagueness overlaying it and through all of it, combines, so far as one can
understand it at present, the disadvantages of all courses without the
advantages of any. The triumphant Arabs have rejected it. They are
not going to put up with it. The despairing Jews will resist it. What
will the world think about it? What will our friends say? What will be
the opinion of the United States of America? Shall we not lose more —
and this is a question to be considered maturely — in the growing support
and sympathy of the United States than we shall gain in local adminis-
trative convenience, if gain at all indeed we do? . . .

Britain's Need is for Fidelity and Firmness

It is hoped to obtain five years of easement in Palestine by this pro-
posal; surely the consequence will be entirely the opposite. A sense of
moral weakness in the Mandatory Power, whose many years of vacillation
and uncertainty have, as the right honourable gentleman admitted yes-
terday, largely provoked the evils from which we suffer, will rouse all
the violent elements in Palestine to the utmost degree. In order to avoid
the reproach, the bitter reproach, of shutting out refugees during this
time of brutal persecution, the quota may be raised, as we were told by
the Secretary of State, and may be continued at an even higher level in
the next five years. Thus, irritation will continue and the incentive to
resist will be aggravated. What about these five years? Who shall say
where we are going to be five years from now? Europe is more than
two-thirds mobilized to-night. The ruinous race of armaments now carries
whole populations into the military machine. That cannot possibly con-
tinue for five years, nor for four, nor for three years. It may be that it
will not continue beyond the present year. Long before those five years
are past, either there will be a Britain which knows how to keep its word
on the Balfour Declaration and is not afraid to do so, or, believe me, we
shall find ourselves relieved of many oversea responsibilities other than
those comprised within the Palestine Mandate.

Some of us hold that our safety at this juncture resides in being bold
and strong. We urge that the reputation for fidelity of execution, strict
execution of public contracts, is a shield and buckler which the British
Empire, however it may arm, cannot dispense with and cannot desire to
dispense with. Never was the need for fidelity and firmness more urgent
than now. You are not going to found and forge the fabric of a grand
alliance to resist aggression, except by showing continued examples of

12

your firmness in carrying out, even under difficulties, and in the teeth
of difficulties, the obligations into which you have entered. I warn the
Conservative party — and some of my warnings have not, alas, been ill-
founded — that by committing themselves to this lamentable act of default,
they will cast our country and all that it stands for, one more step down-
ward in its fortunes, which step will later on have to be retrieved, as it
will be retrieved, by additional hard exertions. That is why I say that
upon the large aspect of this matter the policy which you think is a
relief and an easement you will find afterwards you will have to retrieve,
in suffering and greater exertions than those we are making.

I end upon the land of Palestine. It is strange indeed that we should
turn away from our task in Palestine at the moment when, as the Secretary
of State told us yesterday, the local disorders have been largely mastered.
It is stranger still that we should turn away when the great experiment
and bright dream, the historic dream, has proved its power to succeed.
Yesterday the Minister responsible descanted eloquently in glowing pas-
sages upon the magnificent work which the Jewish colonists have done.
They have made the desert bloom. They have started a score of thriving
industries, he said. They have founded a great city on the barren shore.
They have harnessed the Jordan and spread its electricity throughout the
land. So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the
country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even
all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population. Now we are asked
to decree that all this is to stop and all this is to come to an end. We are
now asked to submit — and this is what rankles most with me — to an
agitation which is fed with foreign money and ceaselessly inflamed by
Nazi and by Fascist propaganda.

It is twenty years ago since my right honourable Friend 1 used these
stirring words:

"A great responsibility will rest upon the Zionists, who, before
long, will be proceeding, with joy in their hearts, to the ancient seat
of their people. Theirs will be the task to build up a new prosperity
and a new civilization in old Palestine, so long neglected and mis-ruled."

Well, they have answered his call. They have fulfilled his hopes.
How can he find it in his heart to strike them this mortal blow?

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

13

THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE*

Adopted by the Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed for the purpose of
giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of
Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administra-
tion of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish
Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Man-
datory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally
made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic
Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood
that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious
rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connec-
tion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected his Britannic
Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in
the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval;
and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the Mandate in respect
of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations
in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is pro-
vided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by
the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the members of
the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
Conforming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows;

Article 1
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration,
save as they may be limited by the terms of this Mandate.

Article 3

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such
political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establish-
ment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the de-

* The preamble and the most significant portions of the Mandate are here reproduced.

14

velopment of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and
religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and
religion.

Article 3

The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local
autonomy.

Article 4

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the
purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in
such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the
Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,
and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part
in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organizations and constitution are
in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency.
It shall take steps in consultation with his Britannic Majesty's Government to
secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment
of the Jewish national home.

Article 6

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position
of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish
immigration under the suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation
with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on
the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Article 15
The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free
exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public
order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be
made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or
language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole grounds of
his religious belief.

Article 24
The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an
annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during
the year to carry out the provisions of the Mandate. Copies of all laws and
regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with
the report.*

* When the White Paper was submitted to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the
League, the majority of the Commission's members expressed themselves as feeling unable
"to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the mandate,
any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the
mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors."

15

The American Zionist Emergency Council

342 Madison Avenue New York 17. N. Y.